Should the New York Times be charged with treason?

Answer 1

Yes. The media needs to learn (be taught) that there are consequences for reckless reporting. The NYT story helped terrorists harm the United States during a time of war. That is treason.

Answer 2

No, because they have not done anything that meets either the constitutional or the statutory definition of treason.

It's really laughable how people can think reporting publicly known information could harm the US. It just shows how knee-jerk reactions aren't confined to any one end of the political spectrum.

Let's start with the financial searches most recently reported. Since 1996, the federal government has announced that it would be searching for and seizing financial assets of groups supporting terrorist organizations. Since at least 2002, the government has made numerous announcements about its successes in stopping international money transfers to terrorist groups. So, it really boggles me that (given this has activity has been public knowledge for 4-10 years), how the NYT reporting that the government is being successful counts as treason.

Then there's the warrantless wiretap program. Which has been illegal since 1978 when Congress passed FISA. Last I checked, revealing illegal activities by the government is what the media is supposed to be doing. That's the whole reason why the press is called the fourth branch of government, and why there is the freedom of the press in the first place. Besides, if revealing the warrantless wiretapping program was going to cause problems, it would have done so years ago. So, hindsight proves that argument wrong.

Treason is defined in the Constitution as levying war against the US, and giving "aid and comfort" to enemies levying war against the US. Article III Section 2. Information about illegal government activities and information about publicly known government activities doesn't fall into either category.

Now let's turn to the free speech argument. The standard has been set forth in the early 1970s by the US Supreme Court. Prior restraints on the press are only allowed where (1) there is no other possible way to achieve national security, AND where (2) the information being 'leaked' would cause an immediate and certain threat to people's lives. This is the same standard used against Geraldo back in the last middle east crises, when he was broadcasting and reporting current troop locations. And I don't recall him being charged with treason, even though his conduct did satisfy the requirements.

The NYT stories don't even come close. Even if we grant the national security interest, the fact that the leaks didn't cause such harm is proof that there was no real danger. Nothing in those stories could have been argued, then or now, to impose a certain and immediate danger to people's lives.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly said that the Commander-in-Sheik does not get a blank check to do anything he wants. He can't just call this a war, ignore all constitutional requirements, and bypass the rules of law.

Reporting information about publicly known activities cannot possibly be treason, because the information is already known. Reporting information about illegal government activities cannot be treason, because the government has no legitimate interest in violating federal law or constitutional requirements.

Because the government has no legal legitimate interests which can be harmed, information about such activity cannot be properly classified nor can revealing it be treason.

It's not treason just because the government doesn't like being made to look stupid, or just because the administration was caught doing something illegal.

But if the government can silence anyone who tells people what's really going on, especially with regard to illegal and unconstitutional activity, then this country has become a tyranny no better than the terrorist nations we claim to oppose.

Answer 3

The New York Times is a business whose goal is to make a profit for it's owners. It is not some "holy entity" that is the watchdog of our liberties. It has an agenda and does not report all the news that's fit to print. It prints all the news that serves its agenda. It has the First Amendment as a blanket to protect it from criticism or prosecution when it steps too far out of line. Any attack on the NYT is seen as an attack on the First Amendment, and so they go on with their one-sided reporting.

We don't know all the details so I'm not sure that they should be prosecuted for treason, but I know one thing is certain -- STOP BUYING THE PAPER AND THE PROBLEM WILL BE SOLVED IN THE GOOD OLD FASHIONED AMERICAN CAPITALISTIC WAY WITHOUT FIRING A SHOT OR SPENDING A NICKLE ON LAWYERS.

Answer 4

No:

"The basis of our governments being the opinion of the people, the very first object should be to keep that right; and were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter. But I should mean that every man should receive those papers and be capable of reading them." --Thomas Jefferson to Edward Carrington, 1787. ME 6:57
"The press [is] the only tocsin of a nation. [When it] is completely silenced... all means of a general effort [are] taken away." --Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Cooper, Nov 29, 1802. (*) ME 10:341

"The only security of all is in a free press. The force of public opinion cannot be resisted when permitted freely to be expressed. The agitation it produces must be submitted to. It is necessary, to keep the waters pure." --Thomas Jefferson to Lafayette, 1823. ME 15:491

"The functionaries of every government have propensities to command at will the liberty and property of their constituents. There is no safe deposit for these but with the people themselves, nor can they be safe with them without information. Where the press is free, and every man able to read, all is safe." --Thomas Jefferson to Charles Yancey, 1816. ME 14:384

Answer 5

Is it not ok for the New York times to publish a few details, but at the same time, when we first entered Iraq, CNN had details on what troops were entering from where and their destination. All the Iraqui's had to do was sit back and let us go through and wait for us to get to our destination. Then they would have us surrounded. When it comes to war, our media system is our worst enemy!

Answer 6

Only if these guys are too.
September 24, 2001 - "We're putting banks and financial institutions around the world on notice — we will work with their governments, ask them to freeze or block terrorists' ability to access funds in foreign accounts." Whoever said this is a traitor and hates America. Oh, wait. That was the president.

September 24, 2001 - " Fourth, law enforcement must be able to follow the money in order to identify and neutralize terrorist networks. Sophisticated terrorist operations require substantial financial resources. On Sunday evening President Bush signed a new executive order under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, IEEPA, blocking the assets of and the transactions of individuals and organizations with terrorist organizations and other business organizations that support terrorism. President Bush's new executive order will allow intelligence, law enforcement and financial regulatory agencies to follow the money trail to the terrorists and to freeze the money to disrupt their actions. This executive order means that the United
States banks that have assets of these groups or individuals must freeze their accounts. And United States citizens or businesses are prohibited from doing businesses with those accounts.
At present the president's powers are limited to freezing assets and blocking transactions with terrorist organizations. We need the capacity for more than a freeze. We must be able to seize. Doing business with terrorist organizations must be a losing proposition. Terrorist financiers must pay a price for their support of terrorism which kills innocent Americans.
Consistent with the president's action yesterday and his statements this morning, our proposal gives law enforcement the ability to seize the terrorists assets. Further, criminal liability is imposed on those who knowingly engage in financial transactions, money laundering involving the proceeds of terrorist acts. " Attorney General John Ashcroft, Testimony Before the House Committee on the Judiciary

Answer 7

ABSOLUTELY!!!!

what they did was treasonous. what else do you call the leaking of classified information? the white house and some congressmen, republican and democrat alike, asked them not to print the story about SWIFT, yet they still ran with it. the editors, publishers and management of that paper should be arrested. freedom of speech my butt! i can't go into a crowded movie theater and yell "fire" so there are in fact restrictions. "free speech" is a misnomer.

Answer 8

no

their job is to tell us what's going on,
whether certain politicians like it or not

without them we cannot be a viable DEMOCRACY because we will not be informed

secrecy and false witness is not a good thing, no matter what some try to tell you

Answer 9

Oh what they heck....why not???? Bin Laden got what he wanted Americans did the job FOR HIM...lets just throw away ALL our freedoms.

Answer 10

Yes!